It depends on the notion of better.
In his papers and lectures, Chomsky talks a lot about the scientific revolution of the 17th century, see for example the first ten pages of Language and Nature. His thesis is that the philosophers and scientists of the time sought to describe reality in mechanical terms, as an intelligible machine, but that Newton's discoveries were the beginning of the end of that project; Newton's physics was considered unintelligible and occult by the mechanical philosophers.
According to chomsky, since the demise of the mechanical philosophy "the sciences postulate whatever finds a place in intelligible explanatory theory, however offensive that may be to common sense."; that is, we settled on theories that we can understand rather than a reality that we can understand.
So it seems that in that sense an explanation of reality in mechanical intelligible terms would be better than modern physics. however it seems that such an explanation is impossible, since according to Bell's inequalities, the universe is hopelessly non-local, and therefore occult or unintelligible in the sense of mechanical philosophy.
If you are interested in understanding Bell's mind blowing theorem, I recommend a book called Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity by the philosopher of science Tim Maudlin. The explanation there is a great example of the importance of philosophy of science; it is crystal clear, aqua vitae.